Wednesday, November 28, 2012

The last pages of the fifth perek of Shabbat contain a series of interpretations by Rabbi Shemuel bar Nahamani in the name of Rabbi Yonatan. Each of them explain why an apparent sin recorded in the Bible wasn’t technically a sin.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

The fifth and sixth chapters of Shabbat discuss what items may be carried in public on the body of a person or animal, as clothing or as jewelry, and are thus excluded from the prohibition of hotsa'ah.

If you were to ask me how these laws should be organized, I would say that the Mishnah should start by discussing what items may be worn by people, followed by what items may be worn by an animal. But the fifth perek deals with animals, and the sixth perek deals with people. Why is that?

The Yalkut Bi'urim in the Mesivta offers a few answers from the aharonim. I suggest that the Mishnah begins with the more interesting, “haviva leih” topic.

The prohibition of hotsa'ah for animals is unique in its sources and in its application.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

After the first four chapters of Massekhet Shabbat dealt with Friday evening, from getting haircuts to keeping food warm, we now have seven straight chapters primarily about hotsa'ah, transferring stuff between private and public domains. I've wondered before why hotsa'ah has such a prominent place in the Talmud.

Chapter 5 discusses hotsa'ah done by an animal. The prohibition of causing an animal to carry has its own aseh, in addition to being included in the lo ta'aseh of rest on Shabbat. I plan to write a post on that, God willing.

But for now, one more source on the nature of hotsa'ah.

Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch discusses the uniqueness of hotsa'ah in his commentary to Exodus 35:1, the beginning of Parashat Vayyakhel.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

On Shabbat 49b, we are told that three early amora'im, Rabbi Yonatan ben Akhinai, Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar, and Rabbi Hanina bar Hama, were sitting discussing a very particular case of muktzeh that came up in the mishnah. Then, in classic Talmudic fashion, we are told as an aside that those amora'im also discussed the most fundamental question of our massekhet:

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

The fourth perek of Shabbat (47b–51b) discusses hatmanah, insulating hot food on Shabbat. Materials that add their own heat may not be used. Why not?

Rava establishes on Shabbat 34a–b that there are two rabbinic decrees against hatmanah. One decree applies to insulating materials that add heat, which may not even be used from Friday going into Shabbat. The other decree applies to materials that insulate without adding heat, which may be used on Friday but not once Shabbat starts. The fourth perek then defines which materials add heat and which don't.

By causing a new egg, which is muktsah, to rest on the keli, you are mevattel keli me-heikhano, “nullifying the readiness of the keli.”

Abaye raises a number of cases against Rav Yosef that also involve bittul keli me-heikhano at first glance, including supporting a broken beam in the ceiling with a bench, placing a keli under a leaking roof, and using an overturned basket as a step for baby chicks to enter and exit their coop.

Rav Yehudah believed that “anyone who goes up from Babylonia to Israel transgresses a positive commandment.” But Rabbi Zeira disagreed and made up his mind to make aliyah, and so for some time he avoided Rabbi Yehudah.

This opinion of Rav Yehudah is quoted on Ketubbot 111a, along with a second statement:

You may not “place” a pot on a stove fueled by peat/marc/pomace (Soncino/ArtScroll/Steinsaltz) or wood, unless you sweep away the coals (gerifah) or cover them with ash (ketimah). Rashi explains the reason as the general rabbinic prohibition against insulating, hatmanah, with something that adds heat. Rabbeinu Hananel and others disagree, and say that the shehiyyah in this mishnah is a unique decree distinct from hatmanah. To this latter opinion, hatmanah applies to a pot resting directly on top of the coals, whereas shehiyyah applies to a pot with legs so it stands above the coals.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Shabbat 34–35 discusses the laws of bein ha-shemashot, the period of twilight between sunset and full darkness. This time has a status of safek, uncertainty, when it comes to laws that depend on the time being day or night. There was no way I was going to skip a sugya on uncertainty.

Bein ha-shemashot is a three-sided safek: it might be fully day, it might be fully night, and it might be some combination of the two. In any question of halakhah we treat it stringently, as either one, or the other, or both of the days that it bridges.

There are two main shittot on understanding the side of the safek that bein ha-shemashot could be both days. Rabbeinu Tam understands the safek to be that any moment between sunset and nightfall could be the dividing line for when the previous day ends and the new day begins. The Ritva (as understood by some aharonim based on a comment on Yoma 47b) understands the safek to be that the entire period of bein ha-shemashot might be ruled as both days intertwined, just as an adroginus might be ruled both male and female.

In this post I discuss Rashi's shittah on how this safek works. It's a shittah whose meaning is, well...uncertain.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

If you're looking for the laws of a timer on Shabbat, click right on through to the article by Rabbi Michael Broyde. This post discusses a related hava amina that caught my interest while learning today's daf.

The Mishnah on Shabbat 29b quotes a dispute about setting up a vessel to drip oil into your lamp: